Jetstar in-air fight

[UP4014]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

My ADF Qantas Club membership first cost me about $100 for a 5 year membership - $20 per year. Joining fee was also charged. The next renewal was about $125 to $150, and the final renewal was $100 per year for a maximum of 4 years. Never got it for free.



what is the definition of intoxication?
I'm sick to death of all these opinions that we all need to be legally sober enough to drive a car. Do the people saying 0.05 even have a clue about what that means? It is only a restriction on being able to drive a private car. IF we take another law, like taxi drivers having to be 0, does that mean that everyone getting on a plane has to be ZERO bac? I can only condemn in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that 0.05% bac has any relevance to people getting on planes or to RSA.

Agree, and you don't have to be drunk to start a fight.

 

[dajop]

A reference is made in the link below:
How First Class Passengers Are Ruining Air Travel | Motherboard

Love this comment:

[FONT=&amp] Reports of air rage on planes that required economy flyers to pass by first-class passengers during the boarding process were significantly more common than on planes that allowed them to board from the middle[/FONT]

Perhaps, just perhaps, the planes that have economy boarding from the middle, or behind business/first class happen to be more spacious widebodies, whereas those that board from just one door at the front typically are cramped narrow bodies ..... and that has more of an influence on behaviour than envy...

 

[Quickstatus]

Love this comment:


Perhaps, just perhaps, the planes that have economy boarding from the middle, or behind business/first class happen to be more spacious widebodies, whereas those that board from just one door at the front typically are cramped narrow bodies ..... and that has more of an influence on behaviour than envy...

Or First class passengers unhappy with the great unwashed spoiling their cocooned environment.

 

[TomVexille]

I'm sure we could look up where the origin of the 0.05 level came from; I'm assuming it was a figure arrived at through physiological studies of BAC on bodily / cognitive function.

Whether it can be used as a basis of judging who is intoxicated or not is different, and it's easy to see why it's also dubious.

People want more solid measures of what counts as intoxicated, either for the purposes of (a) disallowing someone to board an aircraft, and/or (b) not serving them another drink.

I'm sure that there would be people out there who would support a zero BAC to board. It wouldn't mean that people with a higher BAC than zero are actually intoxicated, but - assuming no alcohol is served on board either - it would completely eliminate the possibility of violence due to intoxication. Of course, we may not rule out then that someone may be violent due to drugs, or some other kind of mental condition or phobia. Should we have drug tests, or psychological tests, or.......

0.05 would've come from the physiological assessment of ability to drive a car, since that is the only reference to 0.05 in any laws. It was originally 0.08, back when they had those little crystal things to blow into - I've even blown into a crystal breatho. My assumption is that the crystals had an MDL of 0.08, and that the advent of electronic testing let them get down to 0.05.

I'm sorry but I see little reason for relating violence due to alcohol, or any other substance, to this incident. It's is a strange connection to make. They knew each other. I'll bet there is underlying animosities that surfaced due to lowered inhibitions. Any violence was due to pre-existing conditions with alcohol little more than a catalyst. Having people at zero sure ain't going to stop violence.

I believe that blackcat20s great uncle was part of the medical team that was responsible for reducing the BAC driving limit from .08 to .05 in QLD, and the other states followed suit. He did tell me that the difference was significant enough that it had to happen. Obviously I don't have the research or the details, but I suspect you should be able to find it.

 

[medhead]

I believe that blackcat20s great uncle was part of the medical team that was responsible for reducing the BAC driving limit from .08 to .05 in QLD, and the other states followed suit. He did tell me that the difference was significant enough that it had to happen. Obviously I don't have the research or the details, but I suspect you should be able to find it.

My assumption is 0.08 was based on what was technically able to be detected, including that they always wanted to set it at 0.05 but couldn't because of the limitations of detection technology. I certainly didn't make a claim that lowering to 0.05 was unjustified wrt driving.
I also remember at some stage in my early driving I was subject to a 0.03 or 0.02 limit but that effectively meant zero. The fog of time means I can't remember why it was effectively zero.

 

[JohnK]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

Agree, and you don't have to be drunk to start a fight.

Or drunk to have an accident?

 

[juddles]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

At the end of the day, there will be people who at 0.05 make fools of themselves, whilst others at 0.20 quietly mind their own business. Very hard for policies (or staff) to control.

 

[JohnK]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

Exactly. So you bar some drunk who has an accident from driving for life but a sober person who continually has accidents is fine.

I don't need to have a drink in flight but the option should be there for me to do so if that is what I want to do. Not some machine deciding if I can have a drink or not.

 

[yld200]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

Rumor has it that the total costs associated with the incident is around the $30,000 dollar mark.

An attempt will be made to recover these costs from the individuals involved.

 

[Anna]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

what is the definition of intoxication?

If the relevant piece of legislation does not define it, then pick your favourite dictionary definition.

That's why intoxication/intoxicated are useless terms for slotting people with, and that's why properly drafted legislation will refer to measurements that can be objectively ascertained. Eg BAC 0.05% is the limit for being allowed to drive, not a test of whether or not someone is intoxicated - which lawyers would be kept happy for weeks arguing about

 

[docjames]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

Rumor has it that the total costs associated with the incident is around the $30,000 dollar mark.

An attempt will be made to recover these costs from the individuals involved.

That would be good news - I hope the airline is successful.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

That would be good news - I hope the airline is successful.

I wouldn't personally wish punishment. We all make mistakes. They have apologised. There was little harm done.

Do we have any more information yet as to what extent the airline could have mitigated the need to divert?

 

[mannej]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

I wouldn't personally wish punishment. We all make mistakes. They have apologised. There was little harm done.

Do we have any more information yet as to what extent the airline could have mitigated the need to divert?

I'm sorry but the focus here should be on the individuals. No one forces them to drink, good on the airline should they choose to pursue the costs. This notion of taking responsibility away from the thugs here is quite annoying for those who can control their behaviour.

 

[Anna]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

An attempt will be made to recover these costs from the individuals involved.

Does anyone have an informed or educated idea of what cause of action will be used in the recovery proceedings?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

I'm sorry but the focus here should be on the individuals. No one forces them to drink, good on the airline should they choose to pursue the costs. This notion of taking responsibility away from the thugs here is quite annoying for those who can control their behaviour.

The focus is mostly on the individuals. But I struggle with this blood-sport mentality where many, not remotely affected by what happened, are barracking for these passengers to face the full force of the law and/or be punished as severely as possible by the airline.

Were you on the plane? This is not some repulsive crime. No one was harmed. it was just rowdy behaviour. Personally I don't understand the thirst for punishment that many seem to have.

 

[Conrad_S]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

I'm sorry but the focus here should be on the individuals. No one forces them to drink, good on the airline should they choose to pursue the costs. This notion of taking responsibility away from the thugs here is quite annoying for those who can control their behaviour.

Their behaviour was probably no worse than is seen many days of the week in emergency departments and outside pubs in any decent sized town across Australia. Obviously there was an impact on the other passengers and substantial costs to the airline. They've had a fair belting in the press and at least a couple have expressed some regret or apology.
With the information I've seen I wonder what the value for them, the airline or the community is in taking it further. I can't help but think the deterioration in the situation on board was lengthy and probably not a fixed outcome of a single cause.

 

[Batesy]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/jq27-smokers-15510.html

This was my bogan incident on the same flight number a few years back......

 

[docjames]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

The focus is mostly on the individuals. But I struggle with this blood-sport mentality where many, not remotely affected by what happened, are barracking for these passengers to face the full force of the law and/or be punished as severely as possible by the airline.

Were you on the plane? This is not some repulsive crime. No one was harmed. it was just rowdy behaviour. Personally I don't understand the thirst for punishment that many seem to have.

The airline is harmed (financial), pax are inconvenienced, the cost to an airline if this keeps recurring flows through to costs of airfares etc.

I'm not advocating "punishment". I'm advocating cost recovery (and future deterrent). Different focus. I see no benefit to anyone in a monetary "fine" or locking them in jail.



I also think it's important as a future deterrent (to many, not just these individuals) that cost recovery occurs.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

Does anyone have an informed or educated idea of what cause of action will be used in the recovery proceedings?

At a guess, I would say breach of contract. Not sure whether it would fit within the tort of nuisance.

 

[straitman]

Re: Rumour:[Denied by RR] Qantas to ban JQ SYD-MEL pax from F lounges & send to J lou

I wouldn't personally wish punishment. We all make mistakes. They have apologised. There was little harm done.

Do we have any more information yet as to what extent the airline could have mitigated the need to divert?

What a load of hogwash! There was about $30,000 worth of harm done. People need to accept responsibility for their actions.

The situation could easily have escalated to an unacceptable outcome which is why the pilot would make the diversion call.

Why should the airline and other passengers need to mitigate anything? All people should behave to acceptable standards.

The focus is mostly on the individuals. But I struggle with this blood-sport mentality where many, not remotely affected by what happened, are barracking for these passengers to face the full force of the law and/or be punished as severely as possible by the airline.

No blood-sport mentality as you put it just an expectation of common sense prevailing.

Were you on the plane?

Obviously non of us were on the aircraft (carpenters us planes) but I'm more inclined to believe the professional crew led by their pilot than a second hand opinion based upon emotion and without facts.